New York City activist

March 6, 2008

No-planes theories (transplanted comment thread)

Below is a copy of a bunch of comments originally posted in reply to my post Pentagon no-757 theories: debunkings from within the 9/11 Truth movement. I’m deleting them there and moving them here because the comments are about WTC no-planes theories.

Please note: Here on this blog, comments on the topic of no-planes theories should be posted only in response to this and other posts in the no-planes theories category, and not underneath any other posts.

dwightvw wrote:

Like Diane, I give higher priority to the WTC crimes, and what I say below should not be seen as taking a position either way on what hit the Pentagon.

Anyone studying eyewitness testimony should be aware of research on the effects of misinformation on memory. Elizabeth Loftus is the leader in this field, and has done studies showing people will genuinely hold and vigorously defend detailed, but false, memories.

(See Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory by Elizabeth F. Loftus, July 2005. The PDF download is still free)

She testified for defendants in “repressed memory” child abuse cases, but her testimony drew from more broadly applicable research.

Diane, I won’t make a habit of posting from my blog, but since we share skepticism of Satanic abuse claims, you might be interested in the excerpt from Dr. Loftus’ book.

(See Post-event information influences memory, Ningen’s blog, Wednesday, May 30, 2007.)

Comment by dwightvw — October 29, 2007 @ 8:26 pm/a>

(Above comment edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize and prettify links.)

I (Diane) wrote:

Yes, it’s true that people’s memories can be distorted by subsequent information. However, in the case of the planes that hit the WTC towers (as well as the plane that hit the Pentagon), we’re talking about a LOT of eye-witnesses. I even recall reading somewhere (I don’t have a source handy; I’ll try to look this up later) about some people who were working in high-rise office buildings in midtown Manhattan at the time and were utterly startled by the first plane, scared that the plane might hit them because it was flying so low. Because their startlement occurred before the plane hit the North Tower, it’s extremely unlikely that their memory of the first plane was implanted via a subsequent suggestion.

In what part of the country do you live? (Or in what country, if outside the USA?)

Comment by Diane — October 30, 2007 @ 2:56 pm

dwightvw wrote:

I see that Judy Wood putting up a page on Loftus’ work became the subject of a long thread at Truth Action forum. Great – that should lead to some real insights on this issue. Whether Judy Wood was in a coma or is a traumna victim controlled by Fetzer is not my idea of useful discussion.

I don’t see any reason why the phenomenon would not act on many people, and that sorting that out by self-selection, media selection, etc. would not be easy.

The claims are that the first plane was moving at about 450 mph. That’s very fast. Your response realy doesn’t make sense, because presumably the people told their experience after the plane hit. We’re talking about post-event misinformation and its effects on memory, and we’re not talking about implantation of an entire memory — people could have seen and heard something whiz by. That doesn’t mean it was Flight 11 and hit the North Tower, making its wheel pass through the building to land 1400 feet beyond the North Tower.

This could go on forever, and I’m not really interested in persuading you or your readers about my position on the planes. I’m more interested in your astute analyses of 9/11 from the perspective of progressive politics.

I’m just saying that the research on memory should be taken into account.

Comment by dwightvw — November 2, 2007 @ 2:28 am/p>

dwightvw wrote:

I live in Seattle.

Comment by dwightvw — November 2, 2007 @ 2:29 am

I (Diane) wrote:

dwightvw wrote:

I see that Judy Wood putting up a page on Loftus’ work became the subject of a long thread at Truth Action forum. Great – that should lead to some real insights on this issue. Whether Judy Wood was in a coma or is a traumna victim controlled by Fetzer is not my idea of useful discussion.

Apparently there are a lot of people in the 9/11 Truth movement (and probably in a lot of other political movements too these days) who have bought into the idea that lots of otherwise ordinary middle class and upper middle class people are victims of “ritual abuse” which, supposedly, was actually a CIA mind control experiment to turn people into multiple personalities and then “program” some of these personalities to become Manchurian candidates, etc. (It is a known historical fact that the CIA did do mind control experiments, and it is likely that such experiments have continued, but it seems to me highly unlikely for logistical reasons, if nothing else that the CIA would recruit a bunch of middle-class and upper middle-class parents to abuse their own children.)

Anyhow, are you familiar with Eric Salter’s Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories and related articles? I would guess that you’ve probably seen them already, but, in the event that you haven’t, you might want to take a look at them.

I’m more interested in your astute analyses of 9/11 from the perspective of progressive politics.

Actually I have yet to present a coherent analysis of 9/11 itself from a progressive political standpoint. What I’ve done so far is to (1) expose and oppose some fallacious right wing ideas that have been circulated widely within the 9/11 Truth movement and (2) critique oversimplifications by one left-wing opponent of the 9/11 Truth movement.

Comment by Diane — November 2, 2007 @ 3:21 pm

Ace Baker wrote:

I think the case for no planes at the WTC is proven. The number one most obvious problem with the plane theory is that there is no plane in the wide shot of Chopper 5.

There are many other problems.

I’ve compiled a few questions that ought to have simple answers if there were real planes at the WTC. Thusfar nobody has been able to answer them. Diane, perhaps you’ll have a go.

(See Questions for 9/11 Plane Theorists, Ace Baker’s blog, Wednesday, February 13, 2008.)

Comment by acebaker1 — February 24, 2008 @ 7:39 pm

(Above comment edited by blog author Diane to HTML-ize and prettify link.)

I (Diane) wrote:

Thanks for, at least, taking the time to find the only appropriate place to post the above comment on my blog.

I’m sorry, but I don’t have time to look into no-planes theories. I have too much other research to do that seems to me to be more promising in terms of advancing the 9/11 Truth movement.

Comment by Diane — February 25, 2008 @ 5:52 pm

Ace Baker wrote:

I appreciate your civility. I also appreciate your candor in admitting you haven’t looked into it.

I disagree about the importance of planes v. no-planes. I think it’s worth your time. No-planes is the head of the snake. If there were real planes, then then the news media could perhaps claim they were fooled along with everyone else.

No planes means video compositing. Fox-5 WNYW in particular showed a proven video composite fake video. For crying out loud, the nose of the airplane image accidentally popped out the back side.

No planes means the news media were in on it from the beginning.

Think about the implications, Diane. It’s not just “the Neo-Cons”. It doesn’t matter who you elect.

Comment by acebaker1 — February 28, 2008 @ 4:19 am

I (Diane) wrote:

Ace Baker wrote:

No planes means the news media were in on it from the beginning.

Yep, it implies a truly vast conspiracy. That’s one of the very things that makes it so hard to believe.

No planes means video compositing. Fox-5 WNYW in particular showed a proven video composite fake video.

Or, at least, a video attributed to Fox-5 WNYW has this feature. Do you happen to know of a good way to ascertain whether a given video on the web is, in fact, an accurate reproduction of something originally broadcast on some particular TV station or network at some particular time?

In other words, how do you know that the video fakery wasn’t done by someone else later, for the purpose of seeding hoax theories about 9/11?

In any case, I happen to have a desire to ascertain the authenticity of some other videos of alleged newscasts too, so, if you happen to know of a good way to do that, I would be very interested to hear.

Comment by Diane — February 28, 2008 @ 4:35 am

Ace Baker wrote:

On vastness – No planes makes the conspiracy smaller, not bigger. No planes means no stand down of the military, a huge simplification. It means no incriminating mess at 4 different “crash” sites, another simplification.

On authenticity – We know that Chopper 5 was never replayed, despite being dramatic footage of history’s defining moment. We know that Chopper 5 was cleansed from the archive.org archives, replaced by completely different footage, but with the same voiceover.

We know that broadcast-quality video of 9/11 plane events are not available for license, AT ANY PRICE. Normally, news stations are in the business of licensing footage. This indicates complicity on the part of the media, surely. If they weren’t in on it, they’d WANT high quality video out there to clear their good name.

We know that WNYW anchor Jim Ryan said the plane appeared to “go right through” the building. That’s because the nose of the airplane image was allowed to escape the layer mask for a short time, before they faded to black.

Chopper 5 has the miracle zoom, highly unlikely by chance, a practical necessity for video compositing.

Chopper 5 airplane motion is too unstable.

Chopper 5 fades to black right after the nose out blooper. There are no fades to black in live news.

CNN Ghostplane is also a proven composite, because the wall of the building shows no damage after the wings have entered. CNN showed it, and it was in the CNN DVD “America Remembers”.

How could anonymous internet posters have controlled media policy? Sorry, it makes no sense. They composited airplane images and blew holes in the towers. This was, by far, the simplest, safest way to go about it. Real airplanes leave real evidence, bad evidence, the wrong kind of evidence. Too risky.

Plus, Diane, in terms forwarding the truth movement, no planes proves demolition. Argue microspheres till the cows die, if you have no planes, there must have been demolitions of some sort.

Comment by acebaker1 — March 1, 2008 @ 8:44 am

I (Diane) wrote:

Ace Baker wrote:

On vastness – No planes makes the conspiracy smaller, not bigger. No planes means no stand down of the military, a huge simplification.

No. First, it doesn’t make the conspiracy smaller. A military stand down requires only:

1) Just a little bit of artificially-induced confusion for NEADS/NORAD, possibly via false radar blips. This would require only one person to generate the false blips plus whoever gave that person access.

2) Lackadaisicalness on the part of both the President and the Secretary of Defense, the only two people allowed to authorize a shoot-down, in the event that a military fighter jet managed to intercept one of the hijacked planes despite the confusion.

That’s four people.

On the other hand, no-planes video fakery requires a lot of very fast video editing on the part of a whole bunch of people working for a whole bunch of TV networks, local TV stations, newspapers, etc.

It also needs a whole bunch of people in the FAA and NORAD to falsely “remember” their nonexistent failed effort to chase down the four hijacked planes plus a bunch of false alarms.

It means no incriminating mess at 4 different “crash” sites, another simplification.

It seems to me that that would be a “simplification” only if you believe that there were no human hijackers and that the hijackings were fully automated and/or remote-controlled.

On authenticity – We know that Chopper 5 was never replayed, despite being dramatic footage of history’s defining moment.

How do you know this?

We know that Chopper 5 was cleansed from the archive.org archives, replaced by completely different footage, but with the same voiceover.

How do you know this?

We know that broadcast-quality video of 9/11 plane events are not available for license, AT ANY PRICE.

How do you know this? And, if it’s true, what is the claimed reason?

How could anonymous internet posters have controlled media policy?

Of course they could not have controlled media policy, but they could post what they falsely claim are unaltered clips of mass media broadcasts.

Real airplanes leave real evidence, bad evidence, the wrong kind of evidence.

What kind of possible “wrong evidence” are you thinking of here?

Plus, Diane, in terms forwarding the truth movement, no planes proves demolition.

Indeed it would, if the idea were credible.

Comment by Diane — March 1, 2008 @ 4:18 pm

Ace Baker wrote:

No. First, it doesn’t make the conspiracy smaller. A military stand down requires only:

1) Just a little bit of artificially-induced confusion for NEADS/NORAD, possibly via false radar blips. This would require only one person to generate the false blips plus whoever gave that person access.

Completely wrong. You’d still have the real radar blips. Not just the civilian, but also the military radars all up and down the east coast. It is standard operating procedure to intercept aircraft, and they easily would have done it, with or without Bush and Cheney. A shoot-down is another matter, but the planes would have easily been intercepted.

It would require standing down routine intercept procedure

2) Lackadaisicalness on the part of both the President and the Secretary of Defense, the only two people allowed to authorize a shoot-down, in the event that a military fighter jet managed to intercept one of the hijacked planes despite the confusion.

That’s four people.

On the other hand, no-planes video fakery requires a lot of very fast video editing on the part of a whole bunch of people working for a whole bunch of TV networks, local TV stations, newspapers, etc.

No, it was centrally managed.

It also needs a whole bunch of people in the FAA and NORAD to falsely “remember” their nonexistent failed effort to chase down the four hijacked planes plus a bunch of false alarms.

Wrong. The effort to chase down the planes was real, Diane. Get it? They were chasing false radar blips. There were no planes to find.

It means no incriminating mess at 4 different “crash” sites, another simplification.

It seems to me that that would be a “simplification” only if you believe that there were no human hijackers and that the hijackings were fully automated and/or remote-controlled.

You think there were real hijackers? Really? Do you really think the masterminds would rely on humans crashing planes into buildings? That’s far fetched in the extreme.

On authenticity – We know that Chopper 5 was never replayed, despite being dramatic footage of history’s defining moment.

How do you know this?

Because of the archive. We have September 11, 12, 13 broadcasts from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN and BBC.

We know that Chopper 5 was cleansed from the archive.org archives, replaced by completely different footage, but with the same voiceover.

How do you know this?

Because we have copies of both. We have VHS copies that were recorded from television on the day, and we have the footage that was posted on the official archive.

We know that broadcast-quality video of 9/11 plane events are not available for license, AT ANY PRICE.

How do you know this? And, if it’s true, what is the claimed reason?

Because I have repeatedly tried. There is no claimed reason. If you can license a broadcast-quality copy of Chopper 5, I will pay you a nice finder’s fee. Same goes for broadcast-quality of “the spire”.

How could anonymous internet posters have controlled media policy?

Of course they could not have controlled media policy, but they could post what they falsely claim are unaltered clips of mass media broadcasts.

Yes, but that wouldn’t explain the absence of the real footage. Only the media can control what happens to the real footage, and Chopper 5 is gone. Flushed down the memory hole as far as FOX is concerned.

Real airplanes leave real evidence, bad evidence, the wrong kind of evidence.

What kind of possible “wrong evidence” are you thinking of here?

1,000,000 serial number parts, for example.

Plus, Diane, in terms forwarding the truth movement, no planes proves demolition.

Indeed it would, if the idea were credible.

We have proven video fakery. The idea is credible. In fact, once you accept the inside job generally, you can deduce with pure logic that the perps would never use real planes. Video fakery is the way, because “reality” is created ahead of time. Less risk.

On the other hand, plane-huggers are forced into the implausible position that videos were faked to spawn no-plane theories. From a technical perspective, adding a plane where there was nothing is very easy. Erasing or covering up a plane with a different plane is extremely difficult.

Plus this still would not explain the complete lack of crash physics in the “impact” videos. We never see the hole forming in the side of the south tower, ever. The wings pass, and the wall is intact. It’s fake.

If the fake videos are a honey pot, as you claim, where are the real ones?

Comment by acebaker1 — March 1, 2008 @ 5:14 pm

I (Diane) wrote:

Ace Baker wrote:

Completely wrong. You’d still have the real radar blips.

Yes, of course the real radar blips would still be there, but it takes time to identify which blip is the correct one, given that the plane’s transponder had been turned off. Exactly how much time this should have taken, I’m not sure, but additional unidentified radar blips would obviously have made it take longer.

Not just the civilian, but also the military radars all up and down the east coast.

Indeed I was talking about NEADS/NORAD (i.e. military) radar screens. Once the FAA notifies NORAD about a problematic plane, the NORAD people have to find it on their own radar screens. Without the transponder, that takes a little work, which takes at least a little bit of time.

It is standard operating procedure to intercept aircraft, and they easily would have done it, with or without Bush and Cheney. A shoot-down is another matter, but the planes would have easily been intercepted.

Exactly how easily they could have been intercepted is a matter which, as far as I am aware, no one in the 9/11 Truth movement has yet researched adequately. We’ve been relying, for the most part, on commen-sense assumptions rather than actual research. The necessary research would involve finding out about every plane that was intercepted during the few years before 9/11, where these interceptions took place, and how long each of them took from the time NORAD was notified. Only thus can we establish a baseline for how long it should have taken to intercept the planes.

Regarding the alleged video fakery:

No, it was centrally managed.

By how many people? Anyhow, there would need to be a representative of this central management at every TV network, every New York City local TV station, and every newspaper with reporters in NYC. So that’s still a very large bunch of people.

Wrong. The effort to chase down the planes was real, Diane. Get it? They were chasing false radar blips. There were no planes to find.

You’re making an implied claim here that FAA radar screens, not just NORAD and other military screens, have the false-blip capability. What is your source for info regarding the false blip capability of FAA screens? I’m aware of some news stories that have mentioned the false blip capability of military radar screens, in connection with military training exercises, but I’m not aware of any such news story involving FAA radar screens.

Because of the archive. We have September 11, 12, 13 broadcasts from ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN and BBC.

What archive? Are you referring to copies on the websites of the networks themselves? IF not, where/how did you obtain copies of these broadcasts?

We know that Chopper 5 was cleansed from the archive.org archives, replaced by completely different footage, but with the same voiceover.

How do you know this?

Because we have copies of both. We have VHS copies that were recorded from television on the day, and we have the footage that was posted on the official archive

How did you obtain these copies? Did you personally make the VHS recordings, and did you personally witness the official footage? If not, who/what is your source? Also, when was the archive footage changed?

Real airplanes leave real evidence, bad evidence, the wrong kind of evidence.

What kind of possible “wrong evidence” are you thinking of here?

1,000,000 serial number parts, for example.

Why would this be bad?

Comment by Diane — March 1, 2008 @ 9:18 pm

Ace Baker wrote:

The archive.org archive is the U.S. government archive. The 9/11 news broadcasts were posted there for about a year. They disappeared within hours after the whole BBC WTC7 psychic prediction story broke.

There are only two versions of Chopper 5 known to exist, both recorded on VHS tape. One I call the “west coast” version, was recorded in San Francisco by Eric Salter. The other is the “east coast” version, recorded by persons unknown on the east coast somewhere.

Because it was recorded on both coasts, we know that Chopper 5 was carried live across the FOX network. Chopper 5 has the infamous “nose-out” blooper – they accidentally let the plane image run too long, it appears to pop out of the back side of the building.

News Anchor Jim Ryan comments that the plane appeared to go right through the building, so we know he saw it. The Chopper 5 footage was never replayed, and it was cleansed from the archive. A fairly complete backup of the archive.org archive now sits on

http://911hoax.net/911_News_Broadcasts/

I didn’t see any 9/11 footage until later in the morning on 9/11, I live in Los Angeles.

1,000,000 serial number parts would be terrible for the perpetrators. First, they would never, ever rely on real hijackers to fly those planes. Humans can fail for all sorts of reasons.

Could the real passenger planes have been electronically hijacked? The technology certainly exists. Remote control planes have been around since the 1950’s, current systems are quite sophisticated. But the pilots! The pilots would be on the radio, or their own cell phones screaming, “HELP. We’ve been electronically hijacked! HELP!” They would have had 30 minutes or more time to do this. No way would the perps risk that.

Could military 767’s be switched for the passenger jets? Yes, but here’s where your evidence problem occurs. Real plane crashes leave real evidence. Even with a perfect strike, there are going to be parts scattered all over the place. People can find them, take pictures, write down numbers. Bad, bad idea.

Plus, a real plane would never, disappear into a twin tower “like a bad special effect”. No, for that, you actually need “a bad special effect”. Which is what they did.

No planes means no evidence. The (very few) plane parts in New York were obviously planted. The engine that appeared under the tarp, under the scaffolding? Please. The fuselage piece on top of WTC5, that wasn’t there in early photos, then appeared on October 5? Please.

The hijacker passport? Don’t get me started.

Comment by acebaker1 — March 3, 2008 @ 12:51 am

My response now:

Ace Baker wrote:

First, they would never, ever rely on real hijackers to fly those planes. Humans can fail for all sorts of reasons.

Yes, many things were unpredictable. My guess is that these unpredictabilities could have been dealt with via redundance. I’m inclined to think there were real hijackers, and that bombs and/or incendiaries were also planted in the WTC buildings for the primary purpose of ensuring that something happened to the WTC buildings even if the planes did not hit. (Had the planes not hit, there could have been some back-up excuse for the destruction of the towers. Most likely Al Qaeda would have been blamed somehow.)

Anyhow, you didn’t answer my question about false blips on FAA (as distinct from military) radar screens. Can you provide any evidence that FAA radar screens have the false blip capability?

The (very few) plane parts in New York were obviously planted. The engine that appeared under the tarp, under the scaffolding? Please. The fuselage piece on top of WTC5, that wasn’t there in early photos, then appeared on October 5? Please.

Can you provide sources on these anomalies?

There are only two versions of Chopper 5 known to exist, both recorded on VHS tape. One I call the “west coast” version, was recorded in San Francisco by Eric Salter. The other is the “east coast” version, recorded by persons unknown on the east coast somewhere.

You cite Eric Salter as a source, but he strongly disagrees with your interpretation, or so it would seem. When I Googled his name to see what he had to say about 9/11, I found A Critical Review of WTC ‘No Plane’ Theories. What do you think of that page?

P.S.: I just now found Rebuttal of Ace Baker’s “Chopper 5 Composite” Analysis by Eric Salter, plus your reply, A Deconstruction of Eric Salter’s Chopper 5 Rebuttal, and subsequent rebuttals by Eric Salter linked on the first of the above two pages. I’m in no position to examine the video evidence myself at this point, given that I cannot watch online video and can’t download really long files either.

All I can really say at this point is that I find the no-planes video fakery hypothesis to be prima facie extremely unlikely. How could anyone control all the many video cameras, and other cameras, that were pointed at WTC 2 when it was hit (or whatever happened to it)?

Advertisements

2 Comments »

  1. I don’t have evidence that FAA radars have “false blip” capabilities like the NORAD radars do, but why wouldn’t they? Is there any evidence they don’t? I wouldn’t be surprised if FAA gets its radars from the same place as NORAD, it’s all the government, it’s all under command of the executive branch.

    FAA is “civilian” only in the sense that it monitors civilian aircraft. FAA is under command of the executive branch, just like the military.

    I cannot possibly fathom an inside job scheme that involves real hijackers. It’s extremely unlikely that real hijackers could even take over a single plane. It’s extremely unlikely that they could turn off transponders. It’s extremely unlikely that they could navigate and find targets. It’s extremely unlikely that they would actually fly planes into buildings and kill themselves.

    No way would the perpetrators depend on this stuff. You think the perpetrators would blow up the towers if planes missed them? That’s a huge stretch. There are limits to the gullibility even of the idiotic American people.

    No real-plane scenario makes sense, even before you consider video fakery. Understanding video fakery is not hard.

    For example:

    There is NO PLANE in the wide shot of Chopper 5. The plane would have to be there. We have measured the location of the plane in the wide shot using two different methods, both of which say the plane should be in the shot for over 5 seconds, or 170 video frames. It is not there.

    The nose of the plane pops out the back side of the building, just before a fade-to-black. There is one and only one possible explanation for the nose of the airplane popping out, and that is a false airplane image escaping a layer mask in video compositing software.

    There are no fades-to-black in live news.

    Chopper 5 was never replayed. Think Diane. We have dramatic footage of history’s defining moment, and it was never replayed. How many times did they replay the Rodney King beating? How many time did they replay OTHER angles of the 9/11 “airplane” strike, including angles that were NOT NEARLY AS GOOD as Chopper 5?

    The Ghostplane footage has “magically healing columns”. There is no damage to the side of the tower AFTER the wings pass through. Yet damage is clearly visible from the same video, same quality, later on.

    Eric Salter’s original paper dealt mostly with Webfairy’s idiocy. Most likely Webfairy is an op, poisoning the no-planes position with silly stuff like “there’s no plane in Naudet”.

    I destroyed Eric Salter’s rebuttal to my Chopper 5 velocity analysis so thoroughly THAT HE HAS NOW THROWN OUT HIS PAPER, and replaced his measurements with completely different ones, with a much lower margin of error.

    Salter has never addressed the central point of my analysis, which is to compare the airplane motion before and after stabilization, to see whether it becomes more or less stable.

    Salter never provided any control cases to substantiate his claims, while I did.

    Salter never addresses the more mundane proof of no plane, which is that THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE WIDE SHOT.

    Salter has now officially retired from the debate. It’s over. The news just isn’t out yet.

    No planes solves 9/11.

    Comment by acebaker1 — March 8, 2008 @ 6:59 pm | Reply

  2. A relevant post from the JREF forum: this post by Shrinker in the thread Chopper 5 Velocity Study Proves Video Composite, Reveals Sloppy Photoshopping.

    P.S.: A JREF post by Hokulele lists other threads about no-planes claims.

    Comment by Diane — June 14, 2008 @ 12:05 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: